Ship of Fools: Separatism

Thread: Separatism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026100

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

With the Scottish vote on separatism a year away I thought it would be interesting to get a more general view on separatism. Quite a few countries have undergone a breakup in the last decade or two, some of them more or less amicably (Czech Republic and Slovakia; Slovenia from Yugoslavia, the Baltic states from the USSR) others after a more hostile break down in relations (other former Yugoslav countries, Southern Sudan). I suppose the rest of the USSR breakdown is somewhere intermediate on the scale, with local variations like Chechnya etc.

What are the reasons whny people want to be in a seaprate country? Is it language? In Belgium there is a serious division between the Dutch speaking Flemish and the French speaking Walloons, but in Switzerland they seem to be very happy coexisting with their four official languages even though one of them (Romansch) is spoken by only 0.5% of the population.

Would Scottish independence motivate other regions in Europe to try harder for their own? Like maybe Catalonia, Basqueland, Wales, Northern Cyprus, Friesland?

What would motivate countries to join together rather than separate? There haven't been many since WW2. West and East Germany, North and South Vietnam, Yemen and South Yemen were all previously united and then reunited after separation. In previous centuries separate sovereign states were prepared to join together to make a larger more powerful one. Think of Bismarck uniting all the German states, or the unification of Italy. What were the reasons why the different North American colonies were happy to form basically two countries (Canada and US) rather than the multiple states that they originally seemed destined to become? Why is it so difficult for the EU to do the same as the American states and become a federation?

There are a lot of questions there, and I am not necessarily wanting to unpack them all in great detail, we'll so how it goes.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
What were the reasons why the different North American colonies were happy to form basically two countries (Canada and US) rather than the multiple states that they originally seemed destined to become?

Canad and the US are separate because the US rebelled against the Crown in 1776 and we did not. In truth only Quebec and Nova Scotia existed at the time as colonies on the Canadian side. The Catholic Church had recently secured generous recognition of its privileges and rights from the British Crown and was in no way inclined to throw those away by treating with the Yankee Mob. Quebec also had its French law system restored for Property & Civil Rights matters (personal, private law) and Quebec as in no way inclined to rebel.

Nova Scotia was the site of the Royal Navy's major base at Halifax and didn't want to rebel; there were a few incidents but the American Revolution went off in Nova Scotia like a damp squib of a firecracker.

Quebec has had a Sovereignty Movement for the past forty years and has had two referendums on separation from Canada; both failed.

The recent deplorable, bigoted and racist legislative initiative of the "Charter of Quebec Values" (think Holy Roman Empire, it is none of those things) showed that the PQ didn't care one bit about immigrants and has nearly given up on the Island of Montreal. It is signing away vast tracts of seats permanently.

I can only describe say that a a once-vital political movement has "jumped the shark" and we're watching it mid-jump.

Scotland's rhetoric on separatism copies features from Quebec whole-hog, like "Sovereignty-Association". [Projectile]

English Canadians can recognize it immediately.

Curiously when the PQ Quebec Premier Pauline Marois tried to pay Alex Salmond a visit, he treated her like a bad smell. [Snigger]

Speaking of Canada, apparently Canada is held up as an example for an independent Scotland as so many Scots succeeded mightily in Canadian politics and Canada was a destination for so many Scots emigrants. Yet the large swath of English Canadians of Scots extraction, like me, find the SNP and its separation platform positively dreadful and repulsive.

Dear Lord, we had this squabble on the New Sod for two generations, and the same disease has infected the Old Sod. [Disappointed]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
What were the reasons why the different North American colonies were happy to form basically two countries (Canada and US) rather than the multiple states that they originally seemed destined to become? Why is it so difficult for the EU to do the same as the American states and become a federation?

France has been a sovereign state for what, more than a millenium? As has England. Trying to join countries like that in a confederation isn't the least bit comparable to joining up colonies which had existed for little more than 150 years. Plus most of the American colonists spoke the same language and their forebears hadn't been at each others' throats for centuries. Amongst the Canadians, it isn't surprising that it's New France that entertains ideas of going its own way.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

SPK wrote:

quote:
Speaking of Canada, apparently Canada is held up as an example for an independent Scotland as so many Scots succeeded mightily in Canadian politics and Canada was a destination for so many Scots emigrants.

Not that I doubt you, but that's a rather odd connection for Scottish nationalists to make, since Scots who moved to Canada in the post-Loyalist era were moving to a place which, as you say, pretty much owed its identity to the desire of many people to remain under the British crown.

I've often wondered how much Scottish-Canadian culture reflects anything authentic about the old country, or to what extent it's just adopted the trappings of "stage Scottish", possibly owing as much to Hollywood as to Holyrood.

Both my paternal grandparents came from Scotland, and my relatives still sometimes put on kilts and listen to bagpipe players at gatherings. However, my grandma and grandpa came from opposite ends of Scotland, and both moved to Canada as children, but my relatives seem to regard the culture as one undifferentiated entity.

Having said that, I have been told by actual Scots that these days, bagpipes are played ceremonially all over the place in Scotland, north, south, highlands, lowlands. So maybe the Canadians doing that sort of thing are as authentic as anyone over there.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

People wanting to be in separate countries, or joining is pretty much about a cultural sense of identity, whether you feel you belong together or not.

Belgium is always an interesting one to me. It's arguable that Belgium exists because the linguistic boundary between Dutch and French, the religious boundary between Catholic and Protestant, and the political boundary between French and Spanish control all occurred in slightly different places.

Yes, Flanders is (a dialect of) Dutch-speaking, but it is Catholic. There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument potentially about whether the reason it is Catholic is because it stayed with Spain longer, or whether it stayed with Spain longer because Protestantism didn't take as much of a hold as it did further north, but in the end the border between Belgium and the Netherlands represents a religious cultural boundary rather than a linguistic one.

Conversely, Wallonia is French-speaking, but it was ruled for a long time by the Spanish and others, with only occasional bouts of centralised French rule.

[ 30. September 2013, 04:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
What were the reasons why the different North American colonies were happy to form basically two countries (Canada and US) rather than the multiple states that they originally seemed destined to become? Why is it so difficult for the EU to do the same as the American states and become a federation?
France has been a sovereign state for what, more than a millenium? As has England. Trying to join countries like that in a confederation isn't the least bit comparable to joining up colonies which had existed for little more than 150 years. Plus most of the American colonists spoke the same language and their forebears hadn't been at each others' throats for centuries. Amongst the Canadians, it isn't surprising that it's New France that entertains ideas of going its own way.

There was a premier of Quebec named Robert Bourassa who was rather dodgy about letting on whether or not he was a separatist. He wasn't a member of the separatist party, but he evinced no great love for Canada either.

He also used to wax away about what a great achievement the EU was, and spent some time in Europe studying it. I think his basic idea was that Canada should devolve into the same sort of thing that, at that time, Europe seemed to be evolving into.

link

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I've always assumed that Belgium exists in its current form (founded 1830 after a break away from the Netherlands, under Francophone leadership) because Britain (and perhaps others) didn't want France to control the ports opposite the mouth of the Thames. But I may be completely wrong about this.
Next to no support for independence in Wales: IIRC all the studies run by Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully (the two great experts on these things, first at Aberystwyth University, now at Cardiff) put it pretty consistently at about 10% since the late 1990s. What has increased steadily is support for devolution, and for greater devolution.
Scots shipmates will be better placed than I am to comment on the SNP and on Salmond, who seems to me to be a slippery and unprincipled populist verging on demagoguery. AFAIAC they are welcome to independence and can even keep the oil as long as they take back Michael Gove.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Oh from time to time there are people who would argue that states still have the right to secede from the union. Texans are quick to claim that since they were an independent Republic that was annexed into the United States they still have the right to revert back to independence--that is until there is a major disaster and they have to come to Washington, hat in hand, to ask for assistance

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Separatism surely lies in the desire for self determination by distinct cultural and/or ethnic group. The problem with many former eastern European states or African or Middle-Eastern is that borders were often arbitrarily drawn, often ignoring cultural, religious and ethnic differences. And to be honest, I don't think many people like the idea of being ruled by someone far away who has little or no idea of ones culture etc. Which is why I'm against the EU, for instance.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And to be honest, I don't think many people like the idea of being ruled by someone far away who has little or no idea of ones culture etc. Which is why I'm against the EU, for instance.

I think that there's a lot in this. It's picked up in areas of England too that those ruling from their enclave in London, which is like a country of its own, are completely out of touch with life and people outside, so that there's no concept of how policies will affect people. The Jarrow march could be repeated in every generation, except that it probably wouldn't be allowed to enter London today. Democracy should mean that all people are represented, but it still doesn't seem to work that way as politicians give more allegiance to parties than to constituents.

For a long time the Scottish overall party vote has been overcome by that of the rest of the UK as I understand it, so that it wouldn't be surprising if people there felt imposed upon and unrepresented. Add to that the way they were treated in the past, and more recently eg with poll tax imposition before the rest of the UK, and it's not a surprise that some are saying 'enough'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Separatism surely lies in the desire for self determination by distinct cultural and/or ethnic group.

Bingo.

(Some of) the Scots want to separate because they want to manage their own affairs rather than being ruled by the English. Similarly, (some of) the British/English want to remain separate from Europe because we want to manage our own affairs rather than being ruled by Europeans.

Independence and self-determination are good things in themselves, and worth pursuing regardless whether they would be good or bad in economic or geopolitical terms. It's better to be an insignificant but independent nation than to be a small part of a superpower with minimal control over the laws and economic policies that rule your lives. On a personal, democratic level, it's better to be one vote out of a million than one vote out of a billion (and one vote out of a thousand would be even better still!).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Separatism surely lies in the desire for self determination by distinct cultural and/or ethnic group.
(Some of) the Scots want to separate because they want to manage their own affairs rather than being ruled by the English. Similarly, (some of) the British/English want to remain separate from Europe because we want to manage our own affairs rather than being ruled by Europeans.

The contradiction at the heart of the Unionist Tories is that they simultaneously want to deny the right of self-determination to the Scots while retaining it for themselves.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Sober Preachers Kid:

quote:
Speaking of Canada, apparently Canada is held up as an example for an independent Scotland as so many Scots succeeded mightily in Canadian politics and Canada was a destination for so many Scots emigrants. Yet the large swath of English Canadians of Scots extraction, like me, find the SNP and its separation platform positively dreadful and repulsive.

I haven't come across Canada being held up as an example. Can you give instances of this happening?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The contradiction at the heart of the Unionist Tories is that they simultaneously want to deny the right of self-determination to the Scots while retaining it for themselves.

Well, no, actually. It's a question of the level at which you think that self-determination should apply, which in turn relates to your own sense of identity. For Marvin and his colleagues in the Worcestershire Liberation Front, it'd be very local: for a pan-European, it might be very un-local. But both could be sincere in their belief in self-determination.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
For a long time the Scottish overall party vote has been overcome by that of the rest of the UK as I understand it, so that it wouldn't be surprising if people there felt imposed upon and unrepresented.

It works both ways though, most of the Blair government electoral victories were imposed on the rest of the UK by the Scottish seats having a disproportionately high Labour vote.

Is this recent Scottish separatist talk really just a reaction to the last election's Labour vote being so low that the Scottish bloc no longer held the balance of power?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It's not "recent" though. There has been some form of Scottish Nationalism rumbling on pretty much since the Union of 1707.

The slogan "Scotland Free or a Desert" dates from the 1820 rising.

My great great grandfather was in one of the political parties which eventually morphed into the SNP (though that party campaigned for Land Reform with a distinctively Scottish aspect as opposed to separatism.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Separatism surely lies in the desire for self determination by distinct cultural and/or ethnic group.
Bingo.

(Some of) the Scots want to separate because they want to manage their own affairs rather than being ruled by the English. Similarly, (some of) the British/English want to remain separate from Europe because we want to manage our own affairs rather than being ruled by Europeans.

Independence and self-determination are good things in themselves, and worth pursuing regardless whether they would be good or bad in economic or geopolitical terms. It's better to be an insignificant but independent nation than to be a small part of a superpower with minimal control over the laws and economic policies that rule your lives. On a personal, democratic level, it's better to be one vote out of a million than one vote out of a billion (and one vote out of a thousand would be even better still!).

It's that layering of identity that is really key, though. A term like 'British/English' encapsulates the question: which level of identity is the one you feel most strongly? Does an English person feel more English than British, more British than European?

It's probably the case that those close to a centre of power feel more comfortable relating to that centre. I don't know what happens in the UK, but I'm aware that for those of us outside the UK it's quite easy to slip into treating 'British' and 'English' as if they're synonyms. I'm quite sure that a Scottish person would never do that, and would be very aware of being 'not English'. In some ways 'Scottish' is, psychologically, about being 'not English' and so 'Scottish' gets repeatedly emphasised to the extent that it can be more important than being 'British'.

I am a Canberran. I live in the Australian Capital Territory. Geographically that's a little enclave inside New South Wales. Talk about Australia in general and everything's fine for me, because after all I'm at the centre of Australian power in many ways. This city basically exists because the country exists. I'm naturally comfortable with being 'Australian'.

But God help you if you suggest that I'm from NSW/leave the ACT off a map of Australia. I will notice. It's part of my identity as a Canberran to emphasise that I am not from New South Wales.

(Tasmanians sometimes have similar issues with being left off Australian maps. I don't tend to notice when their island disappears, whereas they sure as hell do.)

[ 30. September 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
For a long time the Scottish overall party vote has been overcome by that of the rest of the UK as I understand it, so that it wouldn't be surprising if people there felt imposed upon and unrepresented.
It works both ways though, most of the Blair government electoral victories were imposed on the rest of the UK by the Scottish seats having a disproportionately high Labour vote.

Not so. If every seat in Scotland that Labour won had gone Conservative in 1997, Labour would still have had a majority of 45; if the same had happened in 2001, Labour would have had a majority of 55. (These figures are calculated from the Commons Library factsheets on those elections). True of 2005, which would have been a hung Parliament under those rather unlikely circumstances.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
In some ways 'Scottish' is, psychologically, about being 'not English' and so 'Scottish' gets repeatedly emphasised to the extent that it can be more important than being 'British'.

I self identify as "Scottish" but it's got nothing to do with being "not English" It's solely about being Scottish. For example, I have a degree in Scots Law and I'm a Scottish solicitor (though non-practicing). Those are simple statements of fact. I cannot practice law in Britain as a whole; I am not qualified to do so.

Similarly, I'm a member of the Church of Scotland. I was baptised into the Church of Scotland as a baby, became a full member at 17, and am now an elder. It's a statement of fact. There's no such thing as the "Church of Britain."

If you heard my RL name, you'd probably identify it as Scottish. No-one would describe any name beginning with "Mc" as "British". My first name might also be described as "Scottish."

I've got no problem with being "British" or indeed "European" per se. It's just that "Scottish" seems to be a more accurate description, in the same way that "woman" seems a more accurate description than "person" even though both may be true.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
In some ways 'Scottish' is, psychologically, about being 'not English' and so 'Scottish' gets repeatedly emphasised to the extent that it can be more important than being 'British'.
I self identify as "Scottish" but it's got nothing to do with being "not English" It's solely about being Scottish. For example, I have a degree in Scots Law and I'm a Scottish solicitor (though non-practicing). Those are simple statements of fact. I cannot practice law in Britain as a whole; I am not qualified to do so.

Similarly, I'm a member of the Church of Scotland. I was baptised into the Church of Scotland as a baby, became a full member at 17, and am now an elder. It's a statement of fact. There's no such thing as the "Church of Britain."

If you heard my RL name, you'd probably identify it as Scottish. No-one would describe any name beginning with "Mc" as "British". My first name might also be described as "Scottish."

I've got no problem with being "British" or indeed "European" per se. It's just that "Scottish" seems to be a more accurate description, in the same way that "woman" seems a more accurate description than "person" even though both may be true.

Yes, but the fact that the institutions and laws haven't ever merged, despite several centuries of union, is part of what I'm talking about. The Scottish people have, over that time, been keen to maintain their own identity rather than be subsumed in 'British' institutions which would most likely be dominated by the English.

It could be as much about timing of events as anything, in that separate Scottish institutions were already well established. Contrast that to Wales, which came under English control considerably earlier. It probably also has to do with the particular manner in which Scotland joined the united kingdom.

PS My first instinct would be to call a 'Mc' name Irish, and then more accurately my second instinct would be to call it Celtic. No doubt the fact that the 'Mc' in my family tree is Irish has something to do with this.

[ 30. September 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
I don't know what happens in the UK, but I'm aware that for those of us outside the UK it's quite easy to slip into treating 'British' and 'English' as if they're synonyms. I'm quite sure that a Scottish person would never do that, and would be very aware of being 'not English'.

Something which happens a lot (probably almost daily for someone like me who listens to Radio 4) is that something will be described as "British" - some aspect of the education system for example - but I am clearly not part of the "Britishness" being described. "British" schoolchildren sit A levels, for example. Well, I sat Highers, as did my children. I know what A levels are, obviously, but I don't know many people who actually sat one.

I do Yougov surveys regularly, and they are dreadful for this. I have occasionally had to abandon surveys half-way through, because I can't answer the questions they assume a "British" person should be able to.

It's an odd feeling of dislocation and slight alienation. It's not strong, but it's there.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
PS My first instinct would be to call a 'Mc' name Irish, and then more accurately my second instinct would be to call it Celtic. No doubt the fact that the 'Mc' in my family tree is Irish has something to do with this.

Indeed. And you'd often be right. I was just trying to make the point, somewhat clumsily, that "Mc"s and "Mac"s aren't regarded as "British" names.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

I'm a southerner born and bred and so the direct impact upon me if Scotland was to separate from the rest of the UK is probably very little.

However the whole campaign seems to be based on rhetoric rather than spelling out what the actual implications to the people of Scotland will mean.

Will they have to 100% fund their own services, armed forces and how will this impact their health service? Will they be able to continue to offer free university education? Will my taxes be used to partially finance a state that rejects my own?

What are the tax implications for the Scottish people?

Very little seems to be said about this from the SNP and their supporters.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Very little seems to be said about this from the SNP and their supporters.

Isn't that something to do with the fact that whenever the SNP say how good independence will be, their claims start to unravel pretty quickly?

Being in England, I haven't been that exposed to the referendum debate thus far, but it seems to me that the SNP aren't clear in their own minds what independence actually means. As far as I can tell, they'd be quite happy with monetary policy set in London and they can't be certain whether or not they'd have to re-apply to join the EU (quite a big issue if you're a pro-EU party).

It all seems a bit wishy-washy to me.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Polly:

quote:
Very little seems to be said about this from the SNP and their supporters.

Perhaps if you were reading Scottish newspapers, or Scottish websites, you would rewalise that these matters are being discussed at great length, and in great detail, much of it, alas, inconclusive!

1. Yes. 100% funding of our own services. The figures being bandied about here is that Scotland currently contributes 9.8% of British taxes, and gets 9.3% of funding back. However, separating the two countries contributions is difficult. But no-one here thinks that Scotland is being massively funded by England. Even Radio 4 concedes that we hold our own comfortably at the moment.

2. Yes. But we won't have nuclear weapons (No More Trident! is a key plank of the camapaign for Scottish Independence) and so we expect to spend less.

3. Yes. Scotland markets itself as a world leader in education. We actively recruit overseas students. "Selling" Scottish University education helps subsidise University costs. At the moment, the Westminster government actually reduces our ability to do this, with anti-immigration policies.

4. No, it won't cost you, apart from e.g. relocating Trident to English waters etc.

5. We'll probably have slightly higher taxes. When we voted for Devolution, we also voted that we were willing to have higher taxation. The general mood is that it's worth paying more tax in return for a secure NHS.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We'll probably have slightly higher taxes. When we voted for Devolution, we also voted that we were willing to have higher taxation.

I thought the vote was for the power to vary the rate of income tax?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The contradiction at the heart of the Unionist Tories is that they simultaneously want to deny the right of self-determination to the Scots while retaining it for themselves.
Well, no, actually.

Well, yes actually.

The Tories happen to believe they're the arbiters of all that's right and fair. I want self-determination, you are separatists, they are terrorists.

I for one welcome our galactic overlords.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Well, yes. But no-one expected the tax rate to go down. 63% voted in favour of tax-varying powers, and if any of those 63% thought that they weren't agreeing to higher taxation in principle, they were daft.

(cross-posted. This was in reply to Anglican't)

[ 30. September 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Tories happen to believe they're the arbiters of all that's right and fair.

Erm, don't all politicians (or politically-minded folk) think this way?

I've never heard someone say 'I'm a committed Socialist but I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the distribution of resources in the workers' paradise that I want to create'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Separatism surely lies in the desire for self determination by distinct cultural and/or ethnic group.
(Some of) the Scots want to separate because they want to manage their own affairs rather than being ruled by the English. Similarly, (some of) the British/English want to remain separate from Europe because we want to manage our own affairs rather than being ruled by Europeans.
The contradiction at the heart of the Unionist Tories is that they simultaneously want to deny the right of self-determination to the Scots while retaining it for themselves.

Good johb I'm not a Unionist Tory then, isn't it.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The contradiction at the heart of the Unionist Tories is that they simultaneously want to deny the right of self-determination to the Scots while retaining it for themselves.
Well, no, actually.
Well, yes actually.

The Tories happen to believe they're the arbiters of all that's right and fair. I want self-determination, you are separatists, they are terrorists.

I for one welcome our galactic overlords.

Oh, I see. Your problem is with the Toryism, not with the Unionism. What about Unionist socialists and liberals, then?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

All the rhetoric about the independence movement being anti-English is a bit absurd given the number of people of English origin, including our local MSP Michael Russell, who are SNP members. I'm broadly in favour of independence, because I think an independent Scotland will be able to set policies that will be based on the economy here, rather than the south of England. Being able to tailor the policies to fit the economy we have will be more efficient than trying to force everything into the southern English model (and I say this as an English southerner). The needs of Barra are different from the needs of Brent. And while the needs of Braehead are also different from those of Barra, geographic and cultural proximity makes those needs more communicable. Putting it bluntly, I'm not convinced that the Westminster parties would piss on the Highland and Islands if they were on fire, whereas I have marginally more confidence in those at Holyrood.

I'm not particularly interested in seeing the SNP come up with concrete plans for everything - make the decision first then we'll have a constitutional convention and sort out the details.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Sober Preachers Kid:

quote:
Speaking of Canada, apparently Canada is held up as an example for an independent Scotland as so many Scots succeeded mightily in Canadian politics and Canada was a destination for so many Scots emigrants. Yet the large swath of English Canadians of Scots extraction, like me, find the SNP and its separation platform positively dreadful and repulsive.

I haven't come across Canada being held up as an example. Can you give instances of this happening?

This New Stateman article is interesting, though as far as I can tell, it doesn't make SPK's specific point, ie. Scottish nationalists like Canada because it's a place where Scots have attained power and prosperity.

The basic gist is that, contra Salmond's rhetoric, Scottish nationalism has more in common with Canadian nationalism than it does with Quebec nationalism.

It's true that if Scottish nationalists are embracing multiculturalism, that puts them much closer to contemporay English-Canadian nationalists, who tend at least to pay lip service to the concept, than to Quebec nationalists, who are quite openly hostile.

And I was surprised to read that a line of poetry often quoted by Scottish nationalists is actually a paraphrase of a poem by Dennis Lee, a noted Canadian nationalist writer. I didn't think Lee had much profile outside of Canada(though he did have some professional association with Jim Henson and the muppets for a while.)

If Dennis Lee is known among Scottish nationalists, it wouldn't surprise me if they've cited Scottish-Canadian prosperuty as an inspiration. Canadian nationalist heroes tend to be men with names like Mackenzie(William Lyon), and MacDonald(Sir John A), though those two guys were respectively anti- and pro- British.

[ 30. September 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I'd say there's a fair likelihood that a Westminster parliament would still be making economic decisions for the Highlands and Islands after independence. Especially if Scotland keeps the pound. But even if Scotland had its own currency, it seems to me that decisions made by the Westminster government would probably still be at least as influential on the independent Scottish economy as anything the Scottish government decided.

At the moment, two Westminster parties have some reason to represent Scotland. After independence, none.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Pin the end the border between Belgium and the Netherlands represents a religious cultural boundary rather than a linguistic one.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. The religious/cultural border lies further north. The North of the Netherlands is mainly Protestant, the South is mainly Catholic. The border between these religious/cultural regions lies at what we call 'The great rivers': the Rhine and the Meuse.

This religious/cultural difference is felt quite clearly in the Netherlands. We say things like 'He's from above (the North of) the great rivers' or 'She's from below (the South of) the great rivers'. People from below the great rivers are Catholic and are thought to have a more 'bohemian' lifestyle (good food, good drinks) than those stiff Calvinists up North. Just like in Belgium.

Religiously/culturally, the people from the South of the Netherlands are in some way closer to Belgium than to the rest of the Netherlands. They even have an accent that is close to Flemish. The religious/cultural border lies at the great rivers (which was also the border of the Roman Empire; coincidence?), not at the national border.

PS I believe that if Scotland does become independent, it should declare itself Scandinavian.

Posted by tbwtg (# 17486) on :

Hmmm.. I like the idea of being Scandinavian (or at least Nordic). Living in Scotland, though born in England (and bullied many years ago at school here for being English), I'm still attracted by the idea of being part of a group of countries that look after their populations, with a health service and other public services that work. Even if some of these services are being partly-privatised in Scandinavian countries too, I'll bet they'll still work afterwards.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe that if Scotland does become independent, it should declare itself Scandinavian.

I was in Wick, Scotland in the summer of 1967, and I read in a local newspaper that some people on Orkney wanted to leave the UK and join Norway.

Their principal grievance was the very high cost of the ferries, which were run by British Rail.

Moo

Posted by tbwtg (# 17486) on :

More generally, as someone said above, independence is a good thing in its own right, even if it costs individuals some money (and it's not obvious that it will, for local citizens in Scotland). But political independence is, like other political topics, partly a question of "can you get away with it?". In 1707, living next to an expansionist England clashing with other nearby European powers, the answer was "probably not". Today, as part of a European Union (even if England and Wales decide to leave that Union), and with nuclear weapons still meaning that all-out wars are unlikely, and won't need much post-war planning, then smaller countries can "get away with it" - the Baltic states, Slovakia, even South Sudan etc.

And then there's that oil. OK, if Scotland stays in a "Sterling" area at least to start, there's a likelihood of a lot of petty decisions to spite Scotland being taken by the City of London, Westminster politicians etc, rather as Ireland was left poor after independence. But there is that oil, which Ireland didn't have. And the EU does present some sort of a restraint on unbridled south-east-England capitalism, which is why MPs from there don't like the EU. And there's the option to build independent political relationships with other countries, eg the Nordic countries, the US, and Canada and other Commonwealth countries; relationships between states of various sizes, rather than just between some tourists and some associations for promoting tourism.

It could be pretty good. At the moment, the only problem is that there isn't a majority in the opinion polls, there's only a year to go, and the world economic climate for the whole UK, let alone Scotland, is pretty scarey, which makes people cautious. But if the situation was somehow reversed, I don't think there would be many people in Scotland voting to join the UK, at the moment or after the last 30 years of economic dislocation. The only people who seem to want to come to the UK are tax exiles, financiers, or poor immigrants driven by desperation.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, I see. Your problem is with the Toryism, not with the Unionism. What about Unionist socialists and liberals, then?

I'm thinking that Unionist socialists and liberals are mostly believers in subsidiarity - that decisions need to made at the appropriate level of government. Local decisions are made by parishes or unitary authorities, regionwide decisions by regional assemblies, national decisions by national governments and transnational treaties by transnational bodies.

The Tories seem to believe that all decisions need to be made by national government.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I have a question for anyone familiar with Scottish nationalism.

In his essay Notes On Nationalism, Orwell, in discussing the nationalist obsession with language purity, wrote:

quote:
Scottish nationalists insist on the superiority of Lowland Scots

Why would Lowland Scots be considered superior by nationalists? Maybe it's just because the Highlands are always the place cited as quintessentially Scottish, but I would have assumed that nationalists prefer Highlands Scots.

Also, not that I'm asking you to read his mind, but would it be likely that Orwell's understanding of the term would correspond to the borders outlined on this map?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
orfeo: Pin the end the border between Belgium and the Netherlands represents a religious cultural boundary rather than a linguistic one.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. The religious/cultural border lies further north. The North of the Netherlands is mainly Protestant, the South is mainly Catholic. The border between these religious/cultural regions lies at what we call 'The great rivers': the Rhine and the Meuse.

This religious/cultural difference is felt quite clearly in the Netherlands. We say things like 'He's from above (the North of) the great rivers' or 'She's from below (the South of) the great rivers'. People from below the great rivers are Catholic and are thought to have a more 'bohemian' lifestyle (good food, good drinks) than those stiff Calvinists up North. Just like in Belgium.

Religiously/culturally, the people from the South of the Netherlands are in some way closer to Belgium than to the rest of the Netherlands. They even have an accent that is close to Flemish. The religious/cultural border lies at the great rivers (which was also the border of the Roman Empire; coincidence?), not at the national border.

Don't be sorry, I stand corrected. I confess my knowledge of the Netherlands is less than my knowledge of Belgium.

What, then, would you ascribe the location of the political border to? Simply the place where it was when they stopped fighting for control?

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I have a question for anyone familiar with Scottish nationalism.

In his essay Notes On Nationalism, Orwell, in discussing the nationalist obsession with language purity, wrote:

quote:
Scottish nationalists insist on the superiority of Lowland Scots
Why would Lowland Scots be considered superior by nationalists? Maybe it's just because the Highlands are always the place cited as quintessentially Scottish, but I would have assumed that nationalists prefer Highlands Scots.

Also, not that I'm asking you to read his mind, but would it be likely that Orwell's understanding of the term would correspond to the borders outlined on this map?

Gosh, I remember doing an essay on this a long long time ago. The assignment was to write about the importance of learning a second language: I was pointing out the prior problem, that one must first identify the first language, and that this is not always as straightforward as it might seem. Lowland Scots (or Lallans) is a case in point. Gaelic (which I think is what you mean by 'Highland Scots') is clearly a different language to English; Lowland Scots is debatably so. But if it is a different language to English, then Scots children are already speaking and working in a second language.

Orwell wrote his Notes in the aftermath of the horrific nationalism that was Nazism. Nazism celebrated the German Volk, and made a great deal of the heroic return to nature and the soil. But that wasn't just a German thing - it was a fashion elsewhere as well. The 1930s literati in Scotland reacted against the urban poverty of the Depression and the militarism of WWI by way of a similar return to a more simple and honest way of life. Hence you have Lewis Grassic Gibbon's great novel of Scottish rural life, Sunset Song. This is written in English, but the dialogue is in an anglified version of the Doric (north east/Aberdeenshire Scots). Authenticity aside, it had to be comprehensible to people who could only read in English - which includes the majority of Scots.

The nationalist poet Hugh McDiarmid also did his groundbreaking work at this time, writing in Lowland Scots. The Scots that he uses is essentially artificial - no one actually speaks exactly like that. But he had embarked on a very deliberate project: to revive or recreate a specifically literary Scots. The theory goes that when the Scottish court relocated to England at the Union of Crowns in 1603, Scotland lost its literary and linguistic 'centre', and the language - once separate from English and unique - fragmented into a series of dialects. The 1930s Scottish Modernists were therefore trying to recapture the medieval glory days of the Scottish makars, when Scotland's courtly poetry was second to none. And as to why they preferred Lowland Scots to Gaelic: well, I guess that they were trying to celebrate a particular kind of Scottish Volk - the farmers and people of the soil. Read Sunset Song if you want to get the idea - Chris Guthrie (the female protagonist) is the earth and soul of Scotland, while her Highland husband Ewan Tavendale is decidedly fey!

The disturbing thing is that the Nazis in Germany loved Sunset Song. Grassic Gibbon was actually a socialist of the left-wing variety, practically a communist, and he abhorred Nazism. But at that time it seems to have been almost impossible to be nationalist without flirting with fascism in some shape or form. MacDiarmid certainly did, though he seemed to think it was a left-wing doctrine at first, and repudiated it later. (MacDiarmid was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and also a founding member of the SNP - he was expelled from both for being a member of the other!)

So basically, Orwell is writing about his own time - about mid-century national socialism, and its opposite or shadow-side, National Socialism. for you. Things have moved on since then, in language as in politics. And yes, the borders on that map are about right.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: What, then, would you ascribe the location of the political border to? Simply the place where it was when they stopped fighting for control?

To be honest, I don't have all the information either. The border more or less follows that of an earlier split between the Spanish and the Austrian Netherlands, I imagine that this might have been a factor.

An exception is what is now the Dutch province of Limburg. This had been part of the Austrian Netherlands, but under the Treaty of London Belgium was forced to cede this to the Netherlands as compensation for parts of Luxembourg that they got from the German Confederation.

I do know that not everyone was happy with the location of the border. Especially the city of Ghent wanted to join the North, because its textile industry suffered heavily under the split.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

@Cottontail

Wow. Looks like the timing of my question could not have been more impeccable. Glad you happend to be around, Cottontail, you clearly have expertise in this field. A complex, yet highly illuminating reply.

So, basically, Lowlands was the linguistic style of the hearty, earth-soaked peasantry, whom the Scottish nationalists were extolling. Makes sense.

And I know where you're coming from with the volk thing. Quebec nationalism, which was liberal and anti-clerical in the early 19th Century(the Lower Canada rebels emancipated Jews, among other things), eventually devolved into conservative anti-clericalism, as represented by Lionel Groux, who railed against urbanization and valorized the pious Catholicism and unsullied culture of the habitants.

Interestingly, those very same pseudo-scientific European ideas made their way over to Korea during the Japanese colonial era, and were harnessed by the postwar dictators, north and south, to foment nationalist fervour.

A few years back, Hines Ward, an American football player of black and Korean descent, toured South Korea, and his visit was generally viewed as signfifying a new open-ness to "foreigners", as opposed to the xenophobia that characterized attitudes during the days of the right-wing dictators.

But the North Koreans were decdedly unimpressed, and denounced the visit in language lifted wholesale from early 20th Century western fascists.

link

[ 01. October 2013, 00:54: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Division along linguistic, cultural or nationalistic lines is popular these days, and also an outcome of the various conflicts, economic issues, rise of religious zealotry, being exploited, various views of history.

The separation of three ethnic groups in Iraq is underway: Sunni, Shia, Kurd. Russia has already devolved its former 17-19th century conquests, with ongoing border revision. Iran probably will come apart. Maybe former Mexican territories will separate this century from the USA, and rejoin the original country, i.e., like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, parts of California.

Re the question of Scotland and its influence on Canada: bagpipes - we play them at everything. They are ubiquitous. Played at everything imaginable.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

On the Scotland/Canada thing, in addition to the Canadian version of the article Stetson posted. That was in the Montreal Gazette, which has been at the forefront o the Quebec sovereignty debate for decades.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Iran probably will come apart.

I haven't heard this one before. What makes you say this?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, I see. Your problem is with the Toryism, not with the Unionism. What about Unionist socialists and liberals, then?
I'm thinking that Unionist socialists and liberals are mostly believers in subsidiarity - that decisions need to made at the appropriate level of government. Local decisions are made by parishes or unitary authorities, regionwide decisions by regional assemblies, national decisions by national governments and transnational treaties by transnational bodies.

The Tories seem to believe that all decisions need to be made by national government.

Quite a lot of nation-state-oriented, Eurosceptic and anti-devolutionist socialists around, at least in the 70s and 80s. There were and are some pro-European, pro-devolution Tories, too. You're right in that British Tories (more so than continental Christian Democrats) tend to focus on the nation state, but you can't just make the simple distinction that you seem to be trying to make.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm thinking that Unionist socialists and liberals are mostly believers in subsidiarity - that decisions need to made at the appropriate level of government. Local decisions are made by parishes or unitary authorities, regionwide decisions by regional assemblies, national decisions by national governments and transnational treaties by transnational bodies.

The Tories seem to believe that all decisions need to be made by national government.

That's exactly the opposite to how I see it. I associate Conservatives with nice people on parish, district, and county councils, and Labour with enormous quantities of red tape designed to prevent elected local government being able to do anything other than follow unionized local government officers' five-year plan, which turns out at closer inspection not to be their own, but one imposed from on high via a regional quango.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm thinking that Unionist socialists and liberals are mostly believers in subsidiarity - that decisions need to made at the appropriate level of government. Local decisions are made by parishes or unitary authorities, regionwide decisions by regional assemblies, national decisions by national governments and transnational treaties by transnational bodies.

The Tories seem to believe that all decisions need to be made by national government.
That's exactly the opposite to how I see it. I associate Conservatives with nice people on parish, district, and county councils, and Labour with enormous quantities of red tape designed to prevent elected local government being able to do anything other than follow unionized local government officers' five-year plan, which turns out at closer inspection not to be their own, but one imposed from on high via a regional quango.

Then you're simply not paying attention.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Iran probably will come apart.
I haven't heard this one before. What makes you say this?

The Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis are all vying for independence. I doubt Iran will fall apart but I could possibly see it being a little smaller.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Iran probably will come apart.
I haven't heard this one before. What makes you say this?

While driving on the w/e we listened to a rebroadcast of CBC's The Current. I had also read A War to End All Wars a while ago. Both caused me to understand that the boundaries of Ottoman Empire successor states were deliberately created so as to combine ethnicities in ways that would allow the French and British to play the parties off against each other. Iraq is already expressing this. I found a link to the show. The discussion of Iran, possibly was unrelated to the show which discussed this. We drove for 8 hours or so, some of it is a blurr.

Iran contains Kurds, Turkmeni, Balochi and Azari. It can't really go in a democratic direction without discussing rights of nationalities and breakdown of current national borders, something the Ottomans dealt with via Millet system and the shah with secret police and American/British "advisors" who promoted (or directly caused, who exactly knows?) the coup which replaced the nascent democracy of Iran with the shah-dictator in the 1950s. Most probably things like the western-back shah coup and the successor Islamic republic merely have postponed the splintering. The problem obviously concerns more than Iran, Iraq and the other middle eastern countries. All of which means that the west has nil interest in real democracy in these countries, because we cannot control the outcome and more importantly, the economic policies of new governments/states. That's why we liked Saddam in Iraq for a long time, and why we like the Saudis now. They control things and continue the flow of oil.

The Turk-based Ottoman empire was replaced by Arab dominated countries and rulership in many mid-east countries, with Iran being differently dominated by Persians. Turkey successfully ethnically cleansed itself of Greeks, Armenians and most of its Kurds in the early 1920s, hence its more democratic nature. -- at least this is the apparent line of argument. If a country has too many nationalities, an authoritarian regime is better than democracy for the immediate survivability of the general populace, viz., the former Yugoslavia before and Tito.

So, in my view, separatism is the wave of the future, and the very idea of democracy within current national borders, with at least some focus on minority rights, will make it happen. Then we will regret that we promoted it, and reinstall dictators. Which will help us keep economic dominance, at least for a while. The counterfoil to this is the WTO, various free trade agreements. But we are cynically controlling those too, merely replacing tinpot dictators with an appearance of the rule of international law, while in actuality bullying our way through.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm thinking that Unionist socialists and liberals are mostly believers in subsidiarity - that decisions need to made at the appropriate level of government. Local decisions are made by parishes or unitary authorities, regionwide decisions by regional assemblies, national decisions by national governments and transnational treaties by transnational bodies.

The Tories seem to believe that all decisions need to be made by national government.
That's exactly the opposite to how I see it. I associate Conservatives with nice people on parish, district, and county councils, and Labour with enormous quantities of red tape designed to prevent elected local government being able to do anything other than follow unionized local government officers' five-year plan, which turns out at closer inspection not to be their own, but one imposed from on high via a regional quango.

Leaving aside for the moment your comments on Labour's local government style, it is true that historically the British way was to govern locally. This began to change in the C20 but there was a strong attachment to local government among Conservatives (and others). Central governments of both parties- including Thatcher's, as much as Blair's- undermined this but there's still a strong localist leaning among many Conservatives (although less so than among the Lib Dems). Doc Tor please note.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Doc Tor please note.

When budgets and planning decisions are made not at local but at national level, I find it extraordinary that you seem to think that the Tories are friends of localism.

We started with rate-capping (Thatcher), and it simply didn't stop.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire and its boundaries have little to do with the Ottomans. It was always its own state.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire and its boundaries have little to do with the Ottomans. It was always its own state.

I'm glad you posted that, I thought I was going mad for a couple of minutes there...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Doc Tor please note.
When budgets and planning decisions are made not at local but at national level, I find it extraordinary that you seem to think that the Tories are friends of localism.

We started with rate-capping (Thatcher), and it simply didn't stop.

Oh FFS just try to read what I actually wrote. I specifically mentioned Thatch (not, by the way, a Tory and only doubtfully a Conservative rather than a right-wing Liberal) and...jeez, what's the point. [brick wall]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire and its boundaries have little to do with the Ottomans. It was always its own state.

Indeed, Iran claims to be the oldest continuously existing state. I'm sure its borders have moved over time, but the core is pretty stable.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Political separatism is a red herring. What is actually happening is integration. This is taking place both economically and socially through globalisation, and politically through international treaties.

Scotland is a very good example. What is proposed is hardly independence in the traditional sense. What the SNP want is to integrate into the wider EU on its own terms, rather than those of Britain as a whole. Whether this is realistic is a matter of debate. What is not really debatable is that independence for many countries is far less of a great unknown than previously. A country's economy is far less determined by government than previously, people move around more, the Internet means more awareness of what it's like abroad. So, while the self-determination that independence used to mean has beenn eroded, such self-determination as one can have looks a lot less scary than it used to. Scotland, like Catalonia, has always had a strong sense of self-identity. Splitting away from its existing state looks a heck of a lot less precarious than it would have in, say, 1930. It looks a lot safer.

I think this is particularly true for Europe. In the rest of the world, what we have seen - firstly, with the break-up of the colonial empires, and then with the break-up of the Soviet Union, is the re-emergence of states with previously-existing identies who - by force of circumstance - now find themselves co-operating with their neighbours to a far greater extent than history has ever seen.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I would suggest that Welsh, Scottish and even Irish nationalism are direct products of the UK culture which has always been very London and South East centric. If the powers-that-be had gone down a Federalist route in the 1800s, much of this pressure would have been removed. But London has always Known Best, and now it's too late. Certainly as far as Ireland is concerned, and very possibly for Scotland too.

Personally, I would like to see Home Rule for the Danelaw.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

This is a topic I have thought about for a long time, from the standpoint of an internationalist. I was a member of the United Nations Association at the age of 16, and slightly later of the Federalist movement. Federalism can mean all things to all men, exemplified by the fact that an early meeting I went to at the House of Commons was chaired by Duncan Sandys, with whom on most other issues I would certainly have disagreed. I rather think internationalism in the UK took a heavy knock during the Falklands crisis: I must confess that at the time I felt the red mist come down as the ships sailed away to the Southern Atlantic, and I couldn't understand why the youth group of the United Nations Association marched against going to war with Argentina.

If you analyse anybody else's nationalism it can seem illogical: our own we regard as normal and take for granted. 'Separatism' is something the English, with all our imperial history, have always regarded as a BAD THING, and the recent balkanisation of the Balkans probably reinforced this.

It has already been pointed out that the idea of Scottish independence makes sense at this time because Europe has an unprecedented degree of security within the European Union. Actually I think NATO, the Council of Europe, and a host of other European organisations few people have heard of are probably equally important. I would extend the argument a stage further: if the United Nations was a more powerful institution there would be even more wriggle room for separatism (or, better still in my opinion, federalism).

Nation states have emerged because of their ability to fight wars. All the modern wars I can think of off-hand have been launched with lies of one kind or another. (The Second World War would seem to be an exception, but then we lie to ourselves by ignoring the fact that it effectively started in 1931.) With democracies, lies would seem to be a necessary part of waging war, since if people knew the truth they wouldn't fight.

There are something like 200 states in the world today. I suspect there is probably an equal number of distinct peoples living within some of these states who would like to form their own nations, and in the right circumstances would pop out, as they did when the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary collapsed, or in more recent times the Soviet Union. Wider regional groupings, on the lines of what has happened in Europe, would enable this to happen. So we have seen South Sudan become a nation with the blessing of the African Union.

Although many peoples aspire to have their own nation state, I believe, paradoxically, that the nation state has had its day. Globalisation is a stronger force. Nation states can no longer fulfill their core function of protecting their citizens. Back in the 1960's keen internationalists like me were eagerly discussing how the development of multinationals with bigger budgets than some countries could only be kept in bounds with stronger international government. In the early 21st Century it would seem foolish in the extreme to confront problems which face the entire human race, and the planet, by relying on the nation state whose raison d'etre is to protect us from other nation states.

For that reason, to answer (part of) the original question, I hope the issue of Scottish independence is resolved by more federalism within the United Kingdom.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Although many peoples aspire to have their own nation state, I believe, paradoxically, that the nation state has had its day. Globalisation is a stronger force. Nation states can no longer fulfill their core function of protecting their citizens. Back in the 1960's keen internationalists like me were eagerly discussing how the development of multinationals with bigger budgets than some countries could only be kept in bounds with stronger international government. In the early 21st Century it would seem foolish in the extreme to confront problems which face the entire human race, and the planet, by relying on the nation state whose raison d'etre is to protect us from other nation states.

What on earth makes you think that some putative "one world government" would look after the interests of people rather than those of multinational corporations? Surely it's far more likely that on a global scale the only ones with enough resources to make themselves heard by the politicians would be those same corporations!

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
All the modern wars I can think of off-hand have been launched with lies of one kind or another... With democracies, lies would seem to be a necessary part of waging war, since if people knew the truth they wouldn't fight.

Sort of - I admire your idealism. I think this needs to be qualified as "launched on at least one side with lies of one kind or another."

Surely the democracies on the "defensive" will fight without being lied to, as it's defensive? To that extent, we could go on for paragraphs about who said what to whom in the run up to 1982, what mixed messages the Argentinean government were sent from London, etc, but once the enemy forces were on the islands I don't think the British government had to lie to get public backing for sending a task force.

I'd also be willing to go a certain way down that line for Kuwait 1990 - whoever drew the maps 70 years before it was a pretty safe assumption that the Kuwaitis didn't want the Iraqis there, whatever the other motivations may have been. Actually, I might go as far as to say neither side was lying in that war - both pretty genuinely thought they had a case.

At the same time, I wonder how much your advocacy of wider federation actually holds. Yes, South Sudan now exists with the blessing of the African Union, but the border hasn't been exactly peaceful, and it's doubtful if there is much residual blessing from the rest of the Sudan, however optimistic things seemed last summer. Below that, the interesting thing is how spectacularly unsuccessful federation has been since the 19th century. Germany has worked, Italy perhaps less so, but along the way we've lost the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.

It's interesting in the last day or so that George Soros has started to predict the unravelling of the EU....

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Although many peoples aspire to have their own nation state, I believe, paradoxically, that the nation state has had its day. Globalisation is a stronger force. Nation states can no longer fulfill their core function of protecting their citizens. Back in the 1960's keen internationalists like me were eagerly discussing how the development of multinationals with bigger budgets than some countries could only be kept in bounds with stronger international government. In the early 21st Century it would seem foolish in the extreme to confront problems which face the entire human race, and the planet, by relying on the nation state whose raison d'etre is to protect us from other nation states.
What on earth makes you think that some putative "one world government" would look after the interests of people rather than those of multinational corporations? Surely it's far more likely that on a global scale the only ones with enough resources to make themselves heard by the politicians would be those same corporations!

Hi Marvin the Martian. My point was that the problem of multinationals was being discussed among fellow schoolchildren and students in the early sixties, but seems to have taken till now (when I'm in my late sixties) to have become a widely discussed issue. At that time, the British branch of the Association of World Federalists had the slogan 'World Peace Through World Law'; at this time, my own thinking having mellowed a bit, I would no longer regard the phrase 'World government' as a useful selling point for the idea of internationalism: indeed, in certain parts of the world, the whole idea would freak people out.

Alongside the perennial problem of peace (and in some parts of the world simply the problem of getting decent government) there are at least half a dozen other problems facing the human race that are completely new, and which can only be solved by international agreement. International agreement is the present basis of world government that actually operates, but I think that more international institutions should be part of the mixture of jurisdictions if the world is to be a reasonable place, or for that matter if the human race is to survive. But I agree with you that international institutions are subject to the same dark forces that can be a malign influence on national governments or separatists, multinationals or the super-rich.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
All the modern wars I can think of off-hand have been launched with lies of one kind or another... With democracies, lies would seem to be a necessary part of waging war, since if people knew the truth they wouldn't fight.

Sort of - I admire your idealism. I think this needs to be qualified as "launched on at least one side with lies of one kind or another."

Surely the democracies on the "defensive" will fight without being lied to, as it's defensive? To that extent, we could go on for paragraphs about who said what to whom in the run up to 1982, what mixed messages the Argentinean government were sent from London, etc, but once the enemy forces were on the islands I don't think the British government had to lie to get public backing for sending a task force.

I'd also be willing to go a certain way down that line for Kuwait 1990 - whoever drew the maps 70 years before it was a pretty safe assumption that the Kuwaitis didn't want the Iraqis there, whatever the other motivations may have been. Actually, I might go as far as to say neither side was lying in that war - both pretty genuinely thought they had a case.

At the same time, I wonder how much your advocacy of wider federation actually holds. Yes, South Sudan now exists with the blessing of the African Union, but the border hasn't been exactly peaceful, and it's doubtful if there is much residual blessing from the rest of the Sudan, however optimistic things seemed last summer. Below that, the interesting thing is how spectacularly unsuccessful federation has been since the 19th century. Germany has worked, Italy perhaps less so, but along the way we've lost the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.

It's interesting in the last day or so that George Soros has started to predict the unravelling of the EU....

It was a bit of a throwaway remark, so I guess I will have to try to justify it! I think the Falklands War was fought as a war of deterrence. Had we handed matters over to the UN or simply accepted a fait accompli every other red dot on the globe we acquired during the 19th century would have been a potential target, perhaps even the 18th century 'prize' of Gibraltar. However, the idea of defending the democratic rights of the islanders became the headline issue.

The idea of lies being necessary for modern warfare was pinched by me from a book by the military writer J.F.C.Fuller. John Pilger has, from a totally different political standpoint, argued the same thing for the Vietnam War. So I thought perhaps they were on to something.

With regard to South Sudan, I would say that this was a part of Africa where Britain screwed up spectacularly. The Sudan was acquired for purely strategic reasons, to safeguard the route to India, which we felt would be compromised if the French controlled the headwaters of the Nile. In order to save money, and perhaps to honour the memory of General Gordon, it was occupied from the North rather from British East Africa. Although it was officially part of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan it was controlled by a handful of British officials, and indeed in fairly recent newspaper articles the fact that they did this armed with nothing more than swagger sticks was apparently one of the glories of the British Empire. The reality was it remained isolated not only from Egypt but from the rest of the world, as unprepared for independence as the neighbouring Belgian Congo. South Sudan suffers from weak government, but it is a vast improvement on the decades of civil war that preceded it.

In general I think the development of regional groupings in Africa is to be welcomed, and that the African Union will, among other things, encourage stronger and more efficient government. Above all, the existence of these wider units of government will, at last, allow Africa to stave off the bullying of other countries and corporations.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0